In the 1960's theoretical physicist Brandon Carter calculated that many of our laws of physics must be tuned to a very precise value, a "Goldilocks" value (not too hot and not too cold) in order for life (as we know it) to exist. One example of this is the fact that human beings could not exist if gravity were stronger or weaker by one part in many billions. The big question is: If the odds against our existence were only one out of many billions, why is it that we are here?

Some think that this is an excellent indication that a God lurks behind the laws of physics and fine tuned them especially for us. Yet would that not require a God at least as fine tuned as the laws are? Others, most notably Astronomer Martin Rees, believe that the Goldilocks enigma may be solved by a vast number of parallel universes, one of which hits the cosmic jackpot and is able to give rise to life. Davies rejects this explanation because he believes that of all the life inhabiting universes, most or all would eventually create many simulated universes, leading to the conclusion that most universes are fake, and finally to the conviction that our universe probably is too. Having rejected the possibility of accepting our universe as a fluke, made by the hand of a God, or one of many other universes, Davies longs for a more sensible solution. He believes that one day both physics and mathematics will be unified, and we will realize that our Universe is essentially a very rational place. It will turn out that human beings are only able to emerge in a rational universe like our own, and that a rational universe would be highly likely to give birth to something like ourselves. He even toys with the notion that future events may influence the past: Minds being able to shape the Universe as rational.

No doubt these are very difficult ideas to understand. Nevertheless, I applaud Davies for presenting such refreshing alternative explanations, and for searching for an explanation which is neither supernatural nor nihilistic. Overall, this is a thought provoking read from a very independent thinker.

Even without parallel universes, I fail to see how the Goldilocks argument points to a god. Sure, it's extremely unlikely to find the exact conditions in which life can take hold. That's why nearly all the known universe is devoid of it.

"Life, it has been said, has a tendency to exist. It has even been argued that the Universe has been designed in order that this should happen, although of course it is hard for a life that does not exist to look around and declare that the Universe has clearly been designed not to come into being."

Even without parallel universes, I fail to see how the Goldilocks argument points to a god. Sure, it's extremely unlikely to find the exact conditions in which life can take hold. That's why nearly all the known universe is devoid of it.

Indeed. A god capable of fine tuning the laws of physics to such precision would seem even more complex and therefore even more improbable.

I think that even if it turns out that our form of life can only flourish in one type of universe, we still have the possibility of other forms of life existing. From what we know, once a self replicating system emerges, which produces offspring much like itself and yet also includes some variance, it is really just a matter of time until it evolves into something we might call "alive".

" ... imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in - an interesting hole I find myself in - fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. "

-- Douglas Adams

(This also describes the lack of concern from the religious Christians about our environment as well.)

Logged

Smart people believe weird things because they are skilled at defending beliefs they arrived at for non-smart reasons. --Michael Shermer

The history of religion is a long attempt to reconcile old custom with new reason, to find a sound theory for an absurd practice. --Sir James George Frazer

Can we look at this on the other side of the coin for a second. Did the universe have to be just right for life to evolve OR did our kind of life evolve in an enviroment hospitial to it?

Second CosmicScherzo; I really wish people would stop saying this without seeing some more of the universe. Life on our planet is made up almost exclusivly of the 10 most common elements in the universe (heck we're made from that list and that isn't the same as the list of the most common elements on earth).

We have found ammino acids in metorites (the building blocks of life), suggestions of life on our second closest neighbor, and identified places within our star system that might carry the same odds. I expect the universe is teaming with life so long as it has some form of energy (food and heat) and a liquid (water probally but who knows what else might work).

Huh ?!?! Nearly all the known universe ?Assuming that we have explored the biggest part of it ?!!?!?!

Did Star Trek and Star Wars really happen while I was in cryo stasis?

I'm shocked....

Nearly all the known universe is empty space, and most matter (well, maybe not dark matter) exists as giant balls of plasma. I'm not going out on too flimsy of a limb to say that there is no life in these places.

Actually your really really wrong on that. Another application of E=MC(2) (Don't know how to do the little 2 over the C) basically says there is no such thing as empty space. For a place to exist something has to be there. What is it in a place we perceive as empty? Dark Energy.

And we have no clue what might be cheerfully exisiting in those places. Admittedly hugely theoritical that life might be there, but in the past 20-30 years our defination of what's alive and where it could be living has been hugely readjusted. Who knows what another 100 yrs might show.

Huh ?!?! Nearly all the known universe ?Assuming that we have explored the biggest part of it ?!!?!?!

Did Star Trek and Star Wars really happen while I was in cryo stasis?

I'm shocked....

Nearly all the known universe is empty space, and most matter (well, maybe not dark matter) exists as giant balls of plasma. I'm not going out on too flimsy of a limb to say that there is no life in these places.

you're not going out on too flimsy of a limb...but you're pulling my leg...right ?

You can't be serious.

Our imagination on what kind of life may have evolved on other planetsis too hindered by what we know exists and has evolved on this particular planetand the science that we know binds it to this kind of environment.......and that is being also put into question further below...

We've not even explored our own environment enoughand we keep finding things about life forms here on earth we could never have imagined.

We have no idea what dark energy even is, so it's wildly speculative that it might be teeming with life.

Many things were wildly speculative...until we found out otherwise...

And to give you a small example...biologists used to speculate that life could not exist at extremely low temperatures below zero.They now know of the Pterostichus sp. or more commonly Arctic Beetle or Carabe Arctique...

This fella can withstand ( as lab tests have shown ) temperatures as low as -81Co by producing Glycerol as the temperatures drop.Glycerol lowers the freezing temperature of the blood (hemolymph) and other liquids in the insect's body, and prevents the formation of ice crystals that would rupture its cells and kill it.

I strongly believe that there is more life out there...of many different kinds

Kinds of life that when we will come to contact with or discover them we'll go " OOOOH SHIIIIIIIT!!!! "because they will be something that until the time we saw them, could not have imagined the could exist.

I'd like to share something equally interesting, extremophile...but the kind that can withstand freezeass temperaturesCheck this this out.... as low as-81Co and it ain't no microbe, it's an insect.http://www.insectia.com/beta/e/iv_c202016.html

I never claimed that there are no life forms outside our atmosphere. I said nearly all of the known universe. We could find a hundred thriving extraterrestrial biospheres and this would still be the case. Unless you claim that a significant portion of the universe is a mass of living tissue, the point remains and stands as a refutation of the Goldilocks argument.

Kinds of life that when we will come to contact with or discover them we'll go " OOOOH SHIIIIIIIT!!!! "because they will be something that until the time we saw them, could not have imagined the could exist.

There is a story that W. Randolph Hearst, or an editor of one of his newspapers, telegraphed Percival Lowell, an astronomer, famous for his mapping of the canals of Mars (now known to be visual illusions), with the question 'Is there life on Mars? Reply in a thousand words.'Lowell wrote out 'Nobody knows.' 500 times. A succinct and valuable answer, the repetition reinforcing its import.

The Goldilocks Enigma would be of interest if we understood the range of possibilities of life. We know only about life on one planet. We therefore have no grounds at all to conclude that the fine-tuning hypothesis is true or false. We simply do not know. Given sufficient time and resources we might find out more, but given the limitation of the speed of light and the size of the universe, the solution to the fine-tuning question is likely, in my view, to remain empirically insoluble. So there is absolutely no point in speculating about it.

In broader terms the fine-tuning argument is simply a variant of the design arguments of natural theology, the claim that the universe possesses properties that could not have arisen spontaneously from its inherent properties, or by chance operating on them, thereby inferring the existence of an intelligent entity that designed and produced it. Unfortunately the design arguments are all circular, and therefore give no information about the existence of a designer.

We've observed a good enough chunk to say that most of it is inhospitable to life

A "good enough" chunk of the UniverseAnd this "good enough" chunck...which you know is not nearly enough to even imply we've even started to explore or observe the...Universe...which is of some considerable proportionIs a chunk big enough ( in your oppion ) to say that "most"...of the Universe...is inhospitable to life...( let me complete the sentence )...as you know it exists on earth...That's just wrong.I Am not blowing this, way out of proportionYou are narrowing the proportions too much...to the confines of life as you know it on earth.

We've been observing the universe at close proximity to us from quite a damn long distance while errors have been made on things we have observed and conclusions we have reached regarding life and how it works on THIS PLANET.

Quote

And many were revealed to be lunacy .Speculation is an empty foundation for a positive claim in any case

Speculation is a start, a foundation indeed...and just like all foundations it is empty to begin with.Even if something proves to be lunacy or stupidity, it may still open ways to alternative paths that will yield their own individual results which can be much more important than what initiated them.

And forgive me for saying it but even if we had explored twice the "chunk" of the universe we haveexplored until now...we would still not know cock...exploring something and not finding anythingis not a reason enough to "say" there is nothing further away...and certainly doesn't mean there is nothing further awayThat's is a reason to keep exploring...and go further

Of course we should keep exploring. You don't need to assume the universe is crawling with life to try and find out if it's actually there.

Let's say you have a sandbox that measures one mile on each side. You explore a single square foot in this box and find nothing but white grains of sand, except for only one grain of black sand. Is it reasonable to assume that the area you haven't yet seen is filled with black sand?

You appear to be applying Pascal's Wager to extrasolar life forms. We can't disprove it, so you might as well believe in it. That's rubbish.

You don't need to assume the universe is crawling with life to try and find out if it's actually there.

It is wrong to assume...or better yet from the way you put it, be sure there isn't any other form of life from so vastly inadequate information.

You're making too many assumptions.You assume we've explored the universe enough.To even further assume it is inhospitable to life.You are also assuming what is hospitable to lifeWithout knowing of other life forms that might thrive on other kinds of environments.

The second assumption of yours, has already been proven wrong here on earth...

As I said, You are making too many assumptions, far too many.I'm only making one.

You're trying to hard to narrow down the proportions my friend...too hard.

Let's say you have a sandbox that measures one mile on each side. You explore a single square foot in this box and find nothing but white grains of sand, except for only one grain of black sand. Is it reasonable to assume that the area you haven't yet seen is filled with black sand?

WHAT ?!?!?Is it more reasonable to assume that an area you haven't explored at the far side of the sandbox,which you can't see from where you stand, isn't filled with black sand ?!Even after finding a grain ?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?There could be a whole layer of black sand UNDER the white sand at the very square you are standing on and have explored.An Idea you would of course dismiss....

Dude...Under this kind of mindframe, people used to think the earth was flat...

Take this sandbox example of yours for instance which is a perfect example...and I'm not even gonna talk about the sand...

You are sanding at the center of this square, whose sides are a mile long each......viewing the square sides from afar you see and know it is a rectangle.

Under your kind of observational assumptions...and according to your exampleYou would assume that the object which you are standing on is just a flat square....not even a side of a cube...so much for the possibility of other kinds of solid objects with sides of shapes other than square, like an upside down pyramid and so on.

This statement of mine

Quote

You're trying to hard to narrow down the proportions my friend...too hard.

Was completely wrong

Your example proves another thing.You're not trying to narrow down the proportions....you are dismissing and not even considering there could be any at all.

You appear to be applying Pascal's Wager to extrasolar life forms. We can't disprove it, so you might as well believe in it. That's rubbish.

Rubbish ?When was a rule about "where Pascal's wager should be applied or not" established to deem my application of it to extrasolar forms as Rubbish ?Are you making one now ?

Pascal's Wager is invalid in any instance, for any purpose, and not just because I say so. It assumes that since you can't disprove a particular assertion, it must be valid. This gives your argument nothing but a vacuum for a foundation.

You don't need to assume the universe is crawling with life to try and find out if it's actually there.

It is wrong to assume...or better yet from the way you put it, be sure there isn't any other form of life from so vastly inadequate information.

I never once said that there wasn't any other form of life. I said that there wasn't life in most of the observable universe. Unless you contend that a cubic meter drawn at random from anywhere in space has a better than 50% chance at containing life, then I stand by that claim.

Lest we all forget, the OP was on the Goldilocks argument. If the universe were created for the sole purpose of supporting life, then life should be everywhere. I pointed out that it's not. You misconstrued this to mean that I said life wasn't anywhere. You appear to have misunderstood my statement from the beginning.

You're making too many assumptions.You assume we've explored the universe enough.To even further assume it is inhospitable to life.You are also assuming what is hospitable to lifeWithout knowing of other life forms that might thrive on other kinds of environments.

I never said any of these things. The cores of stars or deep space at a few degrees kelvin would be inhostpitable to life. I never said there weren't other unknown places that wouldn't be.

Let's say you have a sandbox that measures one mile on each side. You explore a single square foot in this box and find nothing but white grains of sand, except for only one grain of black sand. Is it reasonable to assume that the area you haven't yet seen is filled with black sand?

WHAT ?!?!?Is it more reasonable to assume that an area you haven't explored at the far side of the sandbox,which you can't see from where you stand, isn't filled with black sand ?!Even after finding a grain ?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?There could be a whole layer of black sand UNDER the white sand at the very square you are standing on and have explored.An Idea you would of course dismiss....

There could be other grains of black sand. We've found one, after all. That doesn't validate the conclusion that there must be lumps of black sand thousands of times more concentrated than what we've observed. It's reasonable to believe the same proportions of black to white exist elsewhere unless we discover a reason to alter that view.

You would assume that the object which you are standing on is just a flat square....not even a side of a cube...so much for the possibility of other kinds of solid objects with sides of shapes other than square, like an upside down pyramid and so on.

There are endless possibilities. Extraterrestrial life could be silicon based and feed on arsenic. It could be just like our planet, only millions of years ahead or behind. The ghost of William the Conqueror may run a dry cleaners inside my rectum.

Without evidence, you can't expect others to automatically buy into your speculations. Tits or gtfo.

Back to the black sand "argument" it's very possible that by analzying that one black grain we might figure out where it came from without ever seeing another black grain.

There's a lot of sceine to use for that goal. That research could dispell many possiblites before we even start the hunt for more sand. Admittedly more would be useful for the study but just for example if we find that grain is actully part of an oreo cookie it rules out a lot of possiblities.

*ridiculous example for a ridculour argument

BTW: Deep Space and the core of stars. Both theoritically habitable, assuming you don't hold to the rigid, if its not on earth it can't be life argument.

Under what theory is life in a vacuum, where matter is absent, or in a plasma, where even atoms aren't stable, a viable possibility? Where is the material of life here? Are you talking about disembodied souls, then? If you're a nonbeliever, are you going for the title of Honorary Theist? If you are a theist, that would explain your willful disregard for reality.

"If it's not on Earth, it can't be life"? For f**k's sake, I never suggested this! I'd appreciate it if you'd both stop putting words in my mouth.

With regard to the "fine-tuning" argument, you guys are arguing over a non-issue. The advocates of the "fine-tuning" argument claim that the Cosmos was "fine-tuned" for human (or, at least, humanlike) life. Since their "fine-tuner" du jour is Yahweh, they're really claiming that the Cosmos was "fine-tuned" for us. If the Cosmos is teeming with "life, Jim, but not as we know it" (whether that life is something really exotic like plasma creatures, dark-matter lifeforms, thinking neural structures composed of FSM spaghetti-tangles of wormholes, or something as prosaic as sapient robot spacecraft of plastic and silicon), then the most that could be said is that the Cosmos is "fine-tuned" for them. In which case, we're going to Hell because we've never heard of the Dark Matter Cybernetic Pantheon.1 Which, in addition to being true "fine-tuners" of the Cosmos, is also a good name for a band.

If the Cosmos is virtually empty of life, as it appears to be within the current context of our knowledge, then, it is not "fine-tuned for life" (i.e., life as we know it). It ought to be self-evident that the Cosmos is not tailor-made as an abode for human beings. Even on the one tiny microscopic dust-mote that humans can live on, two thirds of its surface is "fine-tuned" for cuttlefish rather than humans.

NOTES:

1. Christians can accept that thousands of generations of Native Americans, Australian Aborigines, etc. can live and die in ignorance of the "One True Religion" until somebody finally gets around to "preaching the gospel" to them. By this same logic, we cannot rule out that our entire planet is an "Australia," waiting to be discovered by aliens who have the One True Faith.

Logged

"The question of whether atheists are, you know, right, typically gets sidestepped in favor of what is apparently the much more compelling question of whether atheists are jerks."

CosmicScherzo: That's because you keep offering up side tracks that just don't jive with logic.

Even your current examples fall short. Vaccum has to have dark energy to exist. Energy does things. Could have life outside our definaition. Read that real slow till you get the point.

Unstable atoms? Couldn't I argue that water is an unstable molecule? Maybe argue about the logic of energy based life instead of atomic based life. (potentially) Wouldn't such life consider the sun a bastion of what they needed?

I can keep throwing these at you. I am not a thesist. I want only two things from you.

A: you seem to hold a rigid sense of what is possible. That mind set has been defeated countless times throught the ages (surgery, flight, space travel , quanum physics, ect) espically now. Open the door a little.

B: Be a tiny bit more read before posting your hypotheticals. Otherwise they border on straw man arguments.

Again I'm not trying to insult you. I just want you to think.

kcrady: Good point. I'll think on this an have to use it on some poor creationist.

If the universe was fine tuned for humans, then why have all those extra places -- mostly consisting of empty space? Why not just have the celestial spheres and a hard top a few miles up to the universe -- Tower of Babble-style?

Additionally, why have all those places in the universe the way they are? Why are those places so inhospitable for human life that we'd die in minutes if not instantly if we were put anywhere else but within a few dozen feet of the surface of this specific planet?

Quote

. . . imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, ‘This is an interesting world I find myself in’an interesting hole I find myself in’fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!’ This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it’s still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything’s going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.

-- Douglas Adams

Logged

Smart people believe weird things because they are skilled at defending beliefs they arrived at for non-smart reasons. --Michael Shermer

The history of religion is a long attempt to reconcile old custom with new reason, to find a sound theory for an absurd practice. --Sir James George Frazer